Following is an update on H.R. 3798 and S. 3239, concluding with the
answer to a question I asked Bradley Miller of the Humane Farming
Association.

A Plan to Solve the Housing Crisis for Egg-Laying Hens?

If it is all right for an animal protection organization to lobby to ensure
that an animal-abusing industry has "a secure future" and that consumers
have "a dependable economic egg supply," then no one will be fazed by the
advertisement that is currently being run by The Humane Society of the
United States and United Egg Producers promising these outcomes if the Egg
Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012, S. 3239 and H.R. 3798, are
enacted into law. Nor are we likely to be riled by the ad's sly implication
that the industrialized egg industry is not so much a factory farm
enterprise as it is "thousands of family farmers"" just trying to make a
living.

Under the provisions of the Egg Products Inspection Act of 2012, it is
likely that hens could fare a little better at best, installed in their
"enriched" battery cages, 60 hens per cage, in buildings a reporter for The
Republic described on May 31 as "big enough to hangar a Boeing 747." (I do
agree that little perches, rubber "nests" and "scratching" pads are better
for the hens than constantly sitting and standing without relief on wire.)

A few things to consider regarding the proposed legislation:

1. The promotional photographs that are being circulated of clean white
hens in "enriched" cages in shiny-looking buildings with soft light and airy
spaces around them are deceptive. There is nothing in the proposed
legislation that addresses how a gigantic building holding 150,000 hens
laying eggs in metal cages, to which will be added many thousands of tiny "enrichment" devices, will be kept clean. These devices will likely create
even more surfaces for manure, feathers, dander, disease organisms, dust,
cobwebs, rodent droppings, dead flies and other pollution to collect on. As
an egg-industry representative told a USDA meeting in Columbus, Ohio in
2000, even when a battery-hen house is temporarily empty, it takes "at least
two weeks, eight to ten people, and nearly 24 hours a day washing per day to
get it clean." His point was that it was unrealistic to expect egg producers
to devote time, money and labor to cleaning the facilities very often, even
if it would help to reduce salmonella contamination.

2. Regarding Air Quality, the proposed legislation says that beginning 2
years after the date of enactment of the Egg Products Inspection Act
Amendments of 2012, air quality may not exceed "more than 25 parts per
million of ammonia during normal operations." 25 ppm of ammonia is defined
as "acceptable" air quality for the hens, even though ammonia gases have
been known for decades to be toxic to animal cells. Chickens exposed to 20
ppm of ammonia (5ppm less) are susceptible to respiratory illnesses, eye
infections, immune system suppression, and severe vaccine reactions. A law
that allows ammonia levels to reach 25ppm in the hen houses merely codifies
existing industry standards.

3. The proposed federal legislation, if enacted, will prevent states from
passing laws with better housing standards for egg-laying hens. Under "State
and Local Authority," H.R. 3798 says: "Requirements within the scope of this
chapter with respect to minimum floor space allotments or enrichments for
egg-laying hens housed in commercial egg production which are in addition to
or different than those made under this chapter may not be imposed by any
State or local jurisdiction."

4. The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012 say nothing about
penalties for noncompliance. Noticing this, I asked Bradley Miller of the
Humane Farming Association,
"What happens if an egg producer, say, fails to
provide the ‘required' amount of cage space per hen during a designated
phase-in period or after the law is fully implemented as of January 1,
2030?" He responded via email on June 6, 2012:

Unlike every legitimate anti-cruelty law in the
nation, the Rotten Egg Bill contains no criminal penalties whatsoever –
while overturning laws which do.

In general, in federal regulations such as this where
the USDA has been given jurisdiction, it can – in theory –assess limited
civil penalties. But, they are under no obligation to do so and generally
respond with warning letters, if that. And, "The Secretary may compromise,
modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty assessed…."

It's important to note, however, that the
section of the bill you are asking about (relating to the supposed
"phase-in" of inches and modifications) – explicitly excludes any such
penalties. The USDA cannot hold any egg factory legally accountable
for the actions, or inactions, of other facilities. The completely arbitrary
percentages set forth in the bill's "phase-in" section inherently preclude
taking action against any single entity. Who, for instance, would decide
which egg factories will be among the % that are, or are not, going to
provide more cage space before 2029? No one. So, they just exempt everyone
from the theoretical penalties associated with other USDA regulations.

As far as California is concerned, all
authority/enforcement would be tossed to the California Department of
Agriculture. And they would deal with it, or not deal with it, in whatever
way they choose.

Of course, the biggest issues have nothing to do with
penalties since penalties are never likely to come into play. For the most
part, UEP is merely federalizing what they are already doing. More
importantly, and outrageously, they intentionally did not define the term
"adequate environmental enrichments" – even though that is the
focal point of the bill and of UEP/HSUS promotions.

That way, they can continue to paint whatever rosy
picture of heaven-in-a-cage they would like. Rather than proposing standards
which could be scrutinized and understood before becoming the law of the
land, they are attempting to push the entire issue off into the
distant hands of some as-yet unknown USDA Secretary – of some as-yet unknown
Administration.

And for that, UEP/HSUS would like to nullify existing
state laws, take away our voting rights, and effectively eliminate any
chance of ever doing better.

Up front, the bill conveys that producers can
keep hens in existing cages with only 67 square inches per hen for 15 to 18
years after the bill is enacted. That (along with preempting state laws) has
been one of UEP's big selling points when reassuring its own members.

In any case, the entire concept of the USDA, years
from now, reviewing a survey (from an unknown source and with unknown
methodology, accuracy, etc.) to supposedly determine which egg factories are
providing how many inches -- and eventually reporting its own conclusions to
congressional Ag committees – is beyond absurd.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.